 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / December 2007How an orbiter came back at the Cape from a TAL?
Hi, i've googled a bit, but i found generic answers about this kind of scenario. I know that mate 747, during ferry flights has climb limitation for various reasons and isn't equipped for in-flight refueling. Someone wrote about removing the three SSME and all the stuff that can be removed from the orbiter, but still a big 'jump' between Azores and Newfoundland, 2200km. Maybe the Northern Atlantic route has shorter legs but the cold is an issue i think. I remember that our acrobatic team (Frecce Tricolori) uses this route for a ferry flight reaching USA, during 90's and i clear remember the airplanes (MB339-PAN with external tanks) in an Iceland or Greenland airfield nearly frozen, even if covered with a cloth. At this point, isn't more safe to carry the orbiter on the deck of a carrier?.. it's just an example. cheers. Gabriele, Italy. > Hi, i've googled a bit, but i found generic answers about this kind of > scenario. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Gabriele, Italy. e. The flight path is northern Atlantic. Cold is not a issue since it is already cold at the cruise level. Anyways the orbiter has heaters. Getting the orbiter on the aircraft carrier is an issue.. Also the salt environment on the flight deck would be worse > Getting the orbiter on the aircraft carrier is an issue.. Also the > salt environment on the flight deck would be worse Don't aircraft carriers have an elevator that can carry aircraft from the flight deck to below deck hangers? I think the issue would be whether the elevator would be large enough to handle the shuttle. If it were I don't think salt air corrosion would be a huge huge problem and you probably could bag it in plastic of some sort. Now, the likelihood that a real world TAL would actually succeed - that's another issue entirely. > Now, the likelihood that a real world TAL would actually succeed - > that's another issue entirely. And why not? . STS-93 came close to it. There doesn't have to be a problem associated with fire or explosion to initiate a TAL. There are many other reasons to do TAL >> Getting the orbiter on the aircraft carrier is an issue.. Also the >> salt environment on the flight deck would be worse [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > think salt air corrosion would be a huge huge problem and you probably > could bag it in plastic of some sort. How would you get the Shuttle to the port - and then on board the Carrier? > The flight path is northern Atlantic. Cold is not a issue since it is > already cold at the cruise level. Anyways the orbiter has heaters. > > Getting the orbiter on the aircraft carrier is an issue.. Also the > salt environment on the flight deck would be worse The orbiter would be brought back on the back of the 747, not an aircraft carrier. Enterprise was already flown to Paris and back.  SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html >> Hi, i've googled a bit, but i found generic answers about this kind of >> scenario. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Getting the orbiter on the aircraft carrier is an issue.. Also the > salt environment on the flight deck would be worse How would the salt be much worse? The entire shuttle fleet live 1 mile or less from the ocean. And it seems like desert landings would be even worse... > <behlin...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > less from the ocean. And it seems like desert landings would be even > worse... The orbiters are continuously purged with AC air at EAFB and launch site > <behlin...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > less from the ocean. And it seems like desert landings would be even > worse... Carrier would have salt spray vs salt air >> Getting the orbiter on the aircraft carrier is an issue.. Also the >> salt environment on the flight deck would be worse > >How would the salt be much worse? The entire shuttle fleet live 1 mile or >less from the ocean. And it seems like desert landings would be even >worse... Hint: A carriers deck is considerably closer to the ocean than 1 mile. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > Hi, i've googled a bit, but i found generic answers about this kind of > scenario. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Gabriele, Italy. Does anyone know the details of getting the equipment over that would lift the orbiter up? Would the one at Edwards be disassembled and flown over? Danny Deger >> Hi, i've googled a bit, but i found generic answers about this kind of >> scenario. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Does anyone know the details of getting the equipment over that would lift > the orbiter up? Would the one at Edwards be disassembled and flown over? No, the one that was at White Sands I believe is the one used. Carried over in a C-5. > Danny Deger SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote: >> Does anyone know the details of getting the equipment over that would lift >> the orbiter up? Would the one at Edwards be disassembled and flown over? > >No, the one that was at White Sands I believe is the one used. Carried over >in a C-5. Correct. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >> Hi, i've googled a bit, but i found generic answers about this kind of >> scenario. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Danny Deger An orbiter doing a TAL landing (with a payload) would likely mean they would use boxes to return the pieces. > >> Hi, i've googled a bit, but i found generic answers about this kind of > >> scenario. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > An orbiter doing a TAL landing (with a payload) would likely mean they would > use boxes to return the pieces. Not so. Anyways, all TAL's have a payload. The orbiter can take the load >> >> Hi, i've googled a bit, but i found generic answers about this kind of >> >> scenario. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Not so. Anyways, all TAL's have a payload. The orbiter can take the > load And TAL is more about saving the crew than the orbiter. I have it on fairly high authority that a TAL would be a game-ender for the program. > And TAL is more about saving the crew than the orbiter. I have it on > fairly high authority that a TAL would be a game-ender for the program. A lot of us would be curious about that higher authority since pretty much a TAL isn't much different than any other landing other than location. Perhaps you're confusing it with an RTLS which has a higher degree of danger, but by no means is necessarily fatal either. SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html >> And TAL is more about saving the crew than the orbiter. I have it on >> fairly high authority that a TAL would be a game-ender for the program. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Perhaps you're confusing it with an RTLS which has a higher degree of > danger, but by no means is necessarily fatal either. Definitely TAL - I'm only going to go as far as what's been printed in the press due to job worries... >Definitely TAL - I'm only going to go as far as what's been printed in the >press due to job worries... Well, that's a bullshit reason for not going further - as you've already gone much further than what has been printed in the press. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > <behlin...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > And TAL is more about saving the crew than the orbiter. I have it on fairly > high authority that a TAL would be a game-ender for the program. The gamer ender would be due to the reason for the TAL and not the actual TAL landing. I have it on fairly high authority that it isn't >> <behlin...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >I have it on fairly high authority that it isn't I have it on fairly high authority that fairly high authority is rarely authoritative. Jim in Houston. Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches" SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The gamer ender would be due to the reason for the TAL and not the > actual TAL landing. As far as I know, TAL would be something that the CRD or PLT would consciously declare. Some big red button to press as opposed to some automated system declaring it. Correct ? In a case like Challenger, they didn't have time to think about TAL/RTLS/whatever. During the launch sequence, there are specific times between which TAL is possible. Would it be correct to state that within those times, an orbiter would "easily" reach the TAL site and have all the necessary guidance/telemetry to make a picture perfect landing ? Would it be correct to state initiating a TAL implies that the failure is not castratrophic since the crew would still be able to make the ocnscious decision that the orbiter can separate from tank and glide to TAL site. I can think of cabin depressurisation, or SSME failures/shutdown, or perhaps even the SRBs failing to separate (giving the stack too much dead weight to reach orbit). If the only times the crews would get to declare TALs would be non catastrophic failures happening during a window where TAL is possible, then it seems to me that there are good chances the orbiter would make a picture perfect landing. How well protected is the tail flap that acts as elevator from exploding SSMEs ? That might be a critical area that may be damaged and make a picture perfect landing impossible. Can the orbiter control pitch without it while in atmoshere ? >> <behlin...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > I have it on fairly high authority that it isn't Well, then I have to ask how much do you think the landing gear can handle? >>> <behlin...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Well, then I have to ask how much do you think the landing gear can handle? Well, the landing gear has been demonstrated to handle the weight of an orbiter returning from space with a loaded MPLM, Spacehab, or Spacelab. Since Columbus is the same size as an MPLM, I would imagine the 122 TAL landing weight would not be too much higher and that the landing gear could handle it. But in the end, it isn't a matter of what Jim (or Danny, or Derek, or I) *think* the landing gear can handle. The orbiter, including the landing gear, is certified for intact landing up to the downweight limits specified in NSTS-07700 Appendix X. It is the job of Flight Design to ensure that a given shuttle mission stays within those limits. The TAL landing weight limit for a 51.6 degree inclination flight is 244,000 lb. The predicted STS-122 TAL landing weight is 238,000 lb. Looks to me like Flight Design did their job. >> Well, then I have to ask how much do you think the landing gear can >> handle? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Looks to me like Flight Design did their job. So, it's within design and has its full safety factor. Unless someone fudged some numbers and used a little bit of the safety factor to increase the acceptable limit. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com > Well, then I have to ask how much do you think the landing gear can > handle? Always more than it's designed for. If it's above it's design load, the extra weight is just eating into the safety factor. It's less safe, so don't make a habit of doing it. The pucker factor might result in the best landing of the pilot's life. Some people don't like RTLS either, but simulations indicate it will work. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com >> Well, then I have to ask how much do you think the landing gear can >> handle? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Some people don't like RTLS either, but simulations indicate it will work. Speaking of the best landing of the pilots life, I really thought CDR Morgan's recent landing was one of the best I've seen in several years. Rock steady, right on the centerline, down solid from about a 5 foot float, and a real nice job of holding the nose up for most excellent aero breaking. A real pro job. IMHO Regards Jim in Houston. Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches" SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> Well, then I have to ask how much do you think the landing gear can >>> handle? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, >empty what is full, and scratch where it itches" Correct that to CDR Melroy... I must've had a brain fart. Regards, Jim in Houston. Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches" SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >An orbiter doing a TAL landing (with a payload) would likely mean they would >use boxes to return the pieces. Bullshit. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL >>An orbiter doing a TAL landing (with a payload) would likely mean they >>would >>use boxes to return the pieces. > > Bullshit. Ditto. Danny Deger > D. >>>An orbiter doing a TAL landing (with a payload) would likely mean they >>>would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Danny Deger <flips off derek> I'm just telling what I've heard from people who work on the systems; take it or leave it. Means nothing to me. >>>>An orbiter doing a TAL landing (with a payload) would likely mean they >>>>would use boxes to return the pieces. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I'm just telling what I've heard from people who work on the systems; take >it or leave it. Means nothing to me. It very obviously means something to you - else you wouldn't have posted and then continued to respond. Doubly so since, when challenged, you start coming up with bullshit excuses. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.